|
|
|
Thoughts on Freedom and Democracy in the
Montessori Environment
by Sharon E. Caldwell & Matthew Henry R.
Rich
Principal & Director, Nahoon Montessori School,
South Africa
[Note: This brief excerpt is taken from a larger
work entitled Democratic Montessori.]
“The question is neither pedagogic nor
biological, but it is a social matter because
all men form part of society, even babies, and
even young people from 10 to 20 years old. The
men who make up this society have clear-cut
characters. For example, we live in democracies,
but for this to be really true, everyone must be
democratic or rather, everyone must live in a
democratic way, even those who come between the
ages of 0 to 20.”
*****
“At this point one has to ask why one
section of humanity is allowed to express its
free choice for a government that it wants by
voting, while the other half cannot show its own
will in the same way. How can the soul be forged
in such constriction? Children have no choice
either in their school or in their teacher,
nothing. Education understood like this is no
education for the man who wants to grow into
something great. There is no provision for such
an approach in education today.”
What could be the source of these two quotations
– A.S. Neill or John Taylor Gatto? This is a
clear call for the involvement of young children
in democratic processes, advocating that true
education gives children choice to the extent of
choosing their teachers. This would seem to
indicate a source located in the radical free
school or democratic school tradition. These
quotes, however, are from the woman we normally
picture in somber black Victorian attire –
amidst clean, neat, and orderly young children.
They come from one of her lesser-known works, at
the culmination of her career (Montessori,
1998a). Could it be that Montessori’s
philosophies have more in common with the
practices now associated with the democratic and
free school movements than with the drive for
academic performance and “good” behaviour
evident in most Montessori schools today? The
authors feel that this is precisely the case.
Freedom appears to be a central tenet of both
the Montessori and Democratic/Free School
movements. An important question therefore
begins to emerge: Can politics and education
ever be separated from one another? Is Matt Hern
(2005) correct in asserting that “the practice
of pedagogical freedom is closely tied to the
practice of political freedom”? Certainly this
is the case in the history of Montessori
schools. Dr. Montessori’s own bitter experience
was that in the absence of political and
epistemological freedom, there was no room for
pedagogical freedom. Both in Spain and Italy she
discovered that freedom within the school – even
when that approach was the “mainstream” upon
which the whole country’s schools were based –
could have not the tiniest effect on the
political structure of the country, not in the
short-term at any rate. As long as the
socio-political climate remained oppressive the
pedagogy was destined to remain oppressive as
well (this is an idea that has since been
explored extensively by Freire, 1970).
Dr. Montessori possessed a cosmic vision which
encompassed the bringing to fruition of a “New
World” based on peace and true justice developed
through the hidden potentialities of the child
(Montessori, 1988, p. 219). This state could
only be realized by people who have grown up to
value such a situation; more than desiring this
new world one would need to fully understand it.
In many ways her vision is similar to that of
thinkers like Riane Eisler. Eisler, in The
Chalice and the Blade (1987), traced two
different models of human relationships
throughout history. “Dominator” refers to
relationships based on ranking, control,
exploitation, and pain. It is epitomized by what
our society has constructed as typically male
attributes (aggression, ambition, assertiveness,
and – on the flipside - apathy, sycophancy, and
passivity). By “partnership” she means those
relationship patterns based on equality,
empathy, and pleasure. Partnership patterns are
characterized by what are often considered to be
feminine attributes (cooperation, peacefulness,
generosity, and empathy). She also sees these
patterns as applying to both individual and
broadly societal situations, be it in the
bedroom or the boardroom, be it in our intimate
relations or our international relations (Rich,
2007). This understanding of our own situation
as well as the goal to which we aspire enables
us to approach this new world with courage and
with vision. A number of approaches exist for
moving towards peace and partnership. Our
schools approach has been influenced greatly by
the work of Marshall Rosenberg (2003), whose
Nonviolent Communication modality leads to a
consciousness which is far more conducive to
building partnership - we feel - than the
inherently retributive discourse of a judicial
system.
It is pertinent at this point to briefly explore
Dr. Montessori’s view of Democracy. Montessori
did not devote a great deal of time to political
discourse and often chose to represent herself
as apolitical insofar as she did not openly
subscribe to any particular political party.
However her writings do give some indication of
her position as regards political philosophy.
Montessori clearly saw the electoral democracy
which most of the world uses to this day as
entirely insufficient for bringing about social
change. She wrote,
It is strikingly impressive that humanity
despite its nameless slavery forms a kind of
stereotyped chorus crying out that it is free
and independent. These miserable and degraded
people problem their own sovereignty [sic]. What
do these unfortunates look for? They seek, as
their greatest good, what they call Democracy,
i.e. that the people may give their opinion as
to how they are to be ruled – that they may cast
their votes in elections. What irony! To choose
one’s rulers! But those who rule cannot free
anybody from the chains which bind all, which
render all activity and initiative futile and
render them helpless to save themselves.
(Montessori, 1983, p.12ff)
Dr. Montessori possessed a vision of the
liberation of man which could not be
accomplished simply through enfranchisement and
present conceptions of democracy and law. She
proposed that we “…consider man alone and strive
to raise him up, to strip him of the useless
bonds he creates for himself and which push him
downwards into the abyss of lunacy.”
A new question now arises: How does Montessori’s
grand vision of liberating mankind from the
fetters he creates for himself impact upon the
practice of freedom in the classroom? We feel
Dr. Montessori provided some direction when she
wrote that there exists “…a further and
fundamental problem, the problem of the freedom
of the child. The distinction between Democracy
and Totalitarianism has still to be faced. Is
the child to be left free to form himself or is
he to be formed? The question of the freedom of
the child and the freedom of nations demands an
urgent solution,” (Montessori, 1998b). Clearly
when Dr. Montessori discusses the freedom of the
child it is in a context far broader than the
freedom to choose from a predetermined
collection of objects and activities. The
problem is that, while Montessori gave clear
indications of how her didactic apparatus was to
be used, teachers to be trained, and
environments to be prepared, she says very
little about how to create the structures which
will enable children to play a larger role in
the decisions which affect their lives. One can
but wonder at how she might have responded to CS
Lewis’s Screwtape’s sardonic comments when he
says, “Democracy is the word with which you must
lead them (i.e. mankind) by the nose. ... Nor of
course must they ever be allowed to raise
Aristotle’s question: whether ‘democratic
behavior’ means the behavior that democracies
like or the behavior that will preserve a
democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail
to occur to them that these need not be the
same,” (1971).
There is very little meaningful reference made
to aspects of child-directed school governance
in Montessori and related literature. The only
contexts where children are seriously in control
of the day to day decision making processes in
schools, where they have freedom - ranging form
partial to absolute - over how they spend their
time, curricular content, and issues as diverse
as choosing staff and disciplinary procedures
are found in a diverse group of organizations
which commonly fall under the umbrella term
“democratic schools.”
If Montessorians then want to seriously pursue
the possibility of fulfilling the vision of Dr.
Montessori they need to seriously examine the
possibilities of incorporating aspects of
democratic schools into Montessori environments.
This requires serious thought. It is necessary
to examine a number of aspects of both
approaches. Firstly, the aims of the different
approaches are pertinent. Being clear on why we
do something helps us to assess the effect of
what we do. Some practices of democratic schools
may be applicable within the Montessori context,
and add to the success of achieving the aims of
Montessori education, while other practices may
detract from these aims.
By way of example let us examine the Sudbury
Valley School concept
as it is probably the most clearly defined of
the alternatives. There are three aspects of
this approach which are pertinent to this
discussion: Firstly, in the Sudbury model
students are completely free to decide how they
wish to spend their time; secondly, students
always play an active role in the
decision-making processes and management of the
school; and, thirdly, the school has a
legal/judicial system of discipline based on the
judicial system of contemporary USA.
While the first of these aspects could be seen
to be contiguous with the Montessori approach,
differing only in the degree of application, it
is the last two which are relevant in
determining the extent to which this model could
contribute to a Montessori environment. Of
course, the extent to which students are free to
decide on aspects of school governance (i.e.
exercise political freedom) would directly
influence the level of academic freedom of
choice (i.e. pedagogical freedom).
Dr. Montessori asserted that the child was the
“…source of those moral and intellectual values
which could bring the whole world on to a higher
plane,” and that the educational and political
systems of her time (just like those of our
time) served “…to prepare artificially men who
are abnormal and weak, predisposed to mental
illness, constantly needing care not to slip
outward to the periphery where, once fallen,
they become social outcasts,” (Montessori, 1988,
p. 219). On the other hand the Sudbury Valley
movement seems to feel that an ideal - or at
least a sufficient - approach may be found
encapsulated within the American politico-legal
understanding. Its founders write:
We have always felt, based on the values of
the American experience, that due process of law
is an essential element in a school embodying
the principles of personal liberty, mutual
respect, and political democracy. (The Sudbury
Valley School, 2007)
It would appear from the literature available,
that the Sudbury Valley School model aims to
prepare its students to become adults who are
fully functional participants in the electoral
democratic system as it exists in contemporary
USA. This is certainly a far more useful and
noble aim than what the schooling system appears
to be working for; it is also a very realistic
aim.
Montessori’s vision is certainly very
idealistic. We see education also providing for
the preparation of the child to move out and
play an active role in a far broader environment
than the system in which she presently lives. In
short, far more than producing productive
citizens for the world of today, Montessori
education envisages providing the means to
function in the world as it could be. This in no
way diminishes the need for an adequate
understanding of the child’s own context. In
1937 Montessori said in Copenhagen that: “An
education capable of saving humanity is no small
undertaking; it involves the spiritual
development of man, the enhancement of his value
as an individual, and the preparation of young
people to understand the times in which they
live,” (Montessori, 1999).
This implies that the practice of democratic
processes may have a
place in a Montessori environment, but goes
further to indicate that the child could be
given the opportunity to practice various forms
of social organization, a freedom beyond
prescribed mechanisms and systems. Along these
lines in 1931, also addressing a conference in
Copenhagen, she said that:
The human personality is shaped by
continuous experiences; it is up to us to create
for children… a world that will readily permit
such formative experiences. The youngster’s
personality must come in contact with the world
of production after an apprenticeship in
experience; man must be guided first and
foremost toward an awareness of his
responsibilities with regard to human social
organization. Thus from early childhood on,
human beings must have practical experience of
what association is, and only then gradually
fathom the secrets of the technical evolution of
this society. (Montessori 1999)
This leads our discussion directly to a concept
which is pivotal to both Montessori and
“democratic” environments – freedom. It is often
stated that when Montessori used the word
“freedom” she meant “freedom in limits.” This
interpretation can then be used to justify any
limits the adult may whish to place on the
child. While there are undoubtedly references in
Montessori’s works to justify the view that she
certainly did not support the idea of completely
abandoning the child to every whim and impulse,
it can nonetheless be argued that her vision of
freedom encompasses far more than allowing the
child a choice of activity from a pre-selected
and carefully controlled curriculum. It is also
not a case of managing and conditioning the
child until he or she displays an acceptable
level of responsible behaviour, and then
permitting a limited degree of freedom from
overt control. It is clear that Dr. Montessori
desired to emancipate the child from the prison
that society creates for her. In support of this
contention she wrote:
In Roman times, those who were set free from
slavery were not called free men but ‘freed
slaves.’ Someone who has once been a slave can
never really be free in his innermost being.
That is what happens to those of us who are full
of frustrated ambitions. This is the conscious
part of oneself, but there is also a
subconscious part which can never be brought
back to life. (Montessori 1998a)
The freedom envisaged by Montessori is neither
simply a “freedom from” overt control, nor
simply “freedom to” make choices. It is a very
deep and metaphysical concept of freedom. It is
“…not liberation from parents and teachers,” nor
“…from the laws of nature or of the state or of
society;” rather it is “…the utmost freedom for
self-development and self-realization compatible
with service to society,” (Montessori 1998b, p.
88). The notion of individual freedom and its
essential role in the formation of a functional
society suffuse Montessori’s writings. Whilst
lecturing in Karachi in 1946 she taught that,
“Independence is the last conquest and freedom
is the first necessity. So when people are free
in this sense they become independent, because
independence is a conquest that begins with the
individual and then it leads to the organization
of society,” (Kripilani 2002, Lecture 32).
Despite the breathtaking scope of her vision Dr.
Montessori consistently maintained that
individual freedom is the basis of all the rest.
*****
Is our reluctance to look at - and learn from -
other approaches just another life-alienating
prejudice: Can we honestly face the possibility
that maybe “Montessori Education “ as it exists
today embodies just another one of those
prejudices and that our “prepared environments”
may be as limiting as the schools which
Montessori criticized? Is that what she was
warning us about? Alternative educators need to
be open to an ecumenical discourse whilst
maintaining the integrity to promote their
individual ideals. Perhaps considering the
similarities of these, at once disparate
movements, could guide us towards an approach
which fundamentally strengthens the philosophy
and practice of both movements.
Eisler, R. (1987) The Chalice and the blade:
our history, our future. New York:
HarperCollins.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed.
New York: Continuum.
Hern, M. (2005) AERO Conference DVD.
Troy, New York: AERO.
Kripalani, L. (Ed.) (2002) Maria Montessori:
1946 lectures – Karachi, India . Mammolina
Press: Beijing.
Lewis, C.S. (1971) Screwtape proposes a
toast. London: Fontana Books.
Montessori, M. (1983) The formation of man.
Thiruvanmiyur , India : Kalakshetra
Publications.
Montessori, M. (1988) The absorbent mind.
Oxford , England : Clio Press.
Montessori, M (1998a) “On the schooling of young
people, v – 4: 1951”. The child society and
the world: unpublished speeches and writings.
Oxford, England: CLIO Press.
Montessori, M. (1998b) What you should know
about your child. Oxford , England : Clio
Press.
Montessori, M. (1999) Education and peace.
Oxford, England: CLIO Press.
Rich, M. (2007) “The mystery of pleasure:
thoughts on teaching and learning sex and gender
relations in a democratic Montessori elementary
environment”. The Journal of Unschooling and
Alternative Learning, V.1.1.2. Ontario:
Nippisung University.
Rosenberg, M. (2003) Non-violent
communication: A language of life.
Encinitas, CA: Puddledancer Press.
The Sudbury Valley School. (2007) The
Judicial System. Obtainable from <http://www.sudval.org/05_onli_03.html>.
Accessed 20 March 2007.
|
|
